A scientific study provides evidence that crows are capable of recognizing threatening people and can even pass their...

There is no indication in the stimulus that when the crows attacked the people in the masks, they perceived them as threatening. That would have to be an explicit assumption they made in order for their hypothesis to be true. They could've attacked them because they saw them as food or because they are just a bunch of jerks, not because they felt threatened. Answer choice A literary requires them to recognize individuals as threats before they even pass on their concerns. What if they never saw them as threats? What if they never recognized them? I can get that if they thought the people that trapped them were threatening and told all their buddies, but their reactions can only be inferred if they saw them as threats in the first place. The stimulus also merely states that crows "can" tell other crows, not that they are bound by any condition to do so. How is that you can allow for one condition “the crows communicated with other crows” to be satisfied in A for it to be the right answer but then not allow the other condition (that being recognizing a threat) to not make B the right answer? Again, that’s cool if they are not all the same crows but that means nothing if they did not “recognize them as a threat”. This literally makes no sense no matter how you swing it. Why does the negation of "always" even matter in this instance? Why are we even negating it in the first place? It is not a sufficient or necessary.